London Olympics Editorial #1

1 am going to say something that may not make me very popular, but I do not thing that it is right for Oscar Pistorius to compete in the Olympics.

Life is not fair. He was denied his legs, which could be seen as lamentable; however, he has with the help of technology, his access to wealth, and the luck of being born in the "first-world" segment of his nation overcome this handicap quiet well. So I don't feel any pity for him. But I do believe that he has the advantage of technology in a way that pitting it against human physiology creates a playing field that cannot ever be level.

How do we compare what un-enhanced flesh and bones can do against a finely tuned and purposefully designed prosthetic limb? And this has nothing to do with discrimination, it's about the purpose of the olympic games at its heart, a physical competition on various levels of the power of the HUMAN BODY to excel--not the marvels of human technology. No matter what the conclusion of his participation is, it will never be seen as legitimate--nor should it be.

I am also not saying that technology never provides an advantage to athletes. Of course it does. For example, something like the design of a uniform or a piece of equipment clearly do, and are permissible because they are basically available to any athlete who can find a way to replicate them. Other forms of technological advantage, most notably pharmaceuticals, are not, because they bring with them unintended harm to the user and therefore an unfair playing field. You could expect every athlete to adopt a new design of tennis racket, but to expect them to take drugs that will shorten their lives in order to have a fair chance at being a winner, well, it's a no brainer, right?

There is no denying that Mr. Pistorius has achieved amazing, even "Olympian," successes in his life as an athlete. Yet to participate in the actual Olympics? Sorry, I don't think it's right.

(I originally posted this to my facebook page)

To that post my dear friend CR offered this counter point: Pistorius made a good point in an interview. If the prostheses made an "objective" difference, then wouldn't many people who used them be able to race successfully? It's the legs and what he is able to do with them - through training, practice, and probably some talent. I agree that it raises questions about how to set standards and address what are likely to be other situations like this. I also heard an expert talk about the ways these legs also slow him down.

My response: Good points. However, I will comment on the phrase "these legs." What about the next set? What about any set? How do you judge technology of this sort against the human body. Of course, he trains, EVERY athlete trains and learns to use their "tools" to their best advantage. The difference here is clear to me. His "tools" are not like anybody else's in a fundamental way that irrespective of either their advantage or disadvantage is unfair. His "legs" are subject to a range of research and design enhancements that will never be available to living cells--especially, since we've already decided that chemical stimulus like metabolic steroids are off the table. Perhaps, there will come a day when events will contain categories like they do today that draw a distinction between genders to include bionic athletes. That is where his efforts should be pointed. He inspires others with similar situations, right? So let him be the progenitor of an entirely new category of Olympian. THAT would be fair.

And to just say one more thing about his comment on "objective" difference--how does he except us to know? I would have absolutely no idea how to judge his performance with his blade legs against his performance with his biological legs, and honestly neither does he. It's a great sound bite, but is impossible to verify--kind of like Mitt Romney's tax returns!